Get Top Posts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint) by disclosing that access is anonymous (no auth needed), the exact return shape {'data': [...], 'after': cursor|null}, and a degraded fallback mode with concrete limits (~25 posts, no score/comment counts, no pagination). This is precisely the kind of behavior an agent cannot derive from structured fields, especially with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences: purpose and scope first, then the auth/read posture, then return shape and fallback caveats. Nothing is redundant and the inline JSON return literal replaces a missing output schema economically.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param, enumeration-heavy tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract and fallback limitations, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not cover failure/rate-limit behavior or ordering guarantees, so it stops short of fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including cursor semantics, limit range and the time_filter enum, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the time-window default and does not add format or interaction detail beyond it, making 3 the correct baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Top posts of a subreddit'), plus scope ('or the anonymous front page') and a default time window. It is clearly not the same as get_trending_subreddits or get_post_comments, but it never names or contrasts with a sibling such as browse_subreddit, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by the description ('top posts ... over a time window (default week)') and the RSS fallback note flags an operational mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer that browse_subreddit covers non-'top' listings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.